Karnataka High Court
Smt Kastoori vs State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7823 OF 2012
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7792 OF 2012
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7793 OF 2012
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7799 OF 2012
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7800 OF 2012
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7812 OF 2012
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7824 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION No.51795 OF 2012 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITTION No.121 OF 2013 (GM-RES)
CRL.P.No.7823/2012
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Kastoori,
2
Aged about 62 years,
Wife of Dr. G. Krishna Reddy,
Residing at No.748,
18th 'A' Main,
6th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 095.
2. Sri. H.R.Ravichandra,
Aged about 45 yeas,
Son of Late R. Rajashekar Reddy,
Residing at No.551,
16th 'A' Main,
3rd Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri K. Shashikiran Shetty, Senior Advocate for
Shri Vybhav Ramesh, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By the Superintendent of
Police, Lokayuktha Police,
Bangalore.
2. Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa @
Chikka Nagappa,
Aged about 69 years,
3. Smt. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 30 years,
3
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
5. Smt. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
Residing at No.1245,
1st Floor, 5th Main,
18th Cross, 7th Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the F.I.R. in crime
No.89/2012 registered by the first respondent under Section
13(i) (c) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act and Sections 464,
468, 471, 420, 506, 120(B), read with Section 34 of IPC and set
aside the order dated 15.11.2012 making a reference of the
complaint to Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore Urban by exercising powers under Section 156(3) of
Cr.PC.
IN CRL.P.No.7792/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. Anil K. Hirani,
Aged about 50 years,
4
Son of K.G.Hirani,
M/s.Suadela Constructions
Private Limited,
Having its branch office at
No.50, Outer Ring Road,
Vijaya Bank Colony,
Banaswadi,
Bangalore - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri K. Suman, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By the Superintendent of
Police, Lokayuktha Police,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 69 years,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa @
Chikka Nagappa,
3. Smt. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
5. Smt. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
5
Aged about 20 years,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
Residing at No.1245,
1st Floor, 5th Main,
18th Cross, 7th Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated
15.11.2012 passed by the 23rd Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in PCR No.59/2012 in making
reference of the complaint of the respondents 2 to 5 to the
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore
Urban, M.S.Building, Bangalore, for investigation and report
purportedly in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and etc;
IN CRL.P.No.7793/2012
BETWEEN:
Smt. Kavana N.A.,
Aged about 33 years,
Wife of Sri Kaverappa,
M/s. Suadela Constructions
Private Limited, having its
Branch Office at
No.50, Outer Ring Road,
Vijaya Bank Colony,
Banaswadi,
6
Bangalore - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri K. Suman, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By the Superintendent of
Police, Lokayuktha Police,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 69 years,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa @
Chikka Nagappa,
3. Smt. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
5. Smt. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
Residing at No.1245,
1st Floor, 5th Main,
18th Cross, 7th Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 034.
7
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated
15.11.2012 passed by the 23rd Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in PCR No.59/2012 in making
reference of the complaint of the respondents 2 to 5 to the
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore
Urban, M.S.Building, Bangalore, for investigation and report
purportedly in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and etc;
IN CRL.P.No.7799/2012
BETWEEN:
Mr. T.C.Goyal,
Son of Late Shri Gian Chand Goyal,
Aged about 68 years,
Managing Director,
M/s. DLF Limited,
A Company registered under
The Companies Act, 1956 with
Its local office at
Akshaya Nagara Main Road,
Begur, Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore Urban - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri K.G.Raghavan, Senior Advocate for Shri Ganapathi
Hegde, Advocate)
8
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Lokayukta of Karnataka,
Having its office at
M.S.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001
By its Registrar.
2. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 69 years,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa @
Chikka Nagappa,
3. Mrs. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
5. Kum. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
Residing at No.1245,
1st Floor, 5th Main,
18th Cross, 7th Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
9
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
15.11.2012 vide Annexure-A in PCR No.59/2012, passed by
the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, and
Special Judge for P.C. Act, referring the complaint to the
complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban Division to investigate under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
offences alleged to have been committed under Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sections 464,
468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC,
as against the petitioner/accused No.6 and etc;
IN CRL.P.No.7800/2012
BETWEEN:
Mr. K.P.Singh,
Aged about 80 years,
Son of Late Shri Mukthar Singh,
Chairman, M/s. DLF Limited,
A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 with its
Local office at Akshaya Nagara
Main Road, Begur,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore Urban - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri K.G.Raghavan, Senior Advocate for Shri Ganapathi
Hegde, Advocate)
10
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Lokayukta of Karnataka,
Having its office at
M.S.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001
By its Registrar.
2. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 69 years,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa @
Chikka Nagappa,
3. Mrs. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
5. Kum. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
Residing at No.1245,
1st Floor, 5th Main,
18th Cross, 7th Sector,
HSR Layout,
11
Bangalore - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
15.11.2012 vide Annexure-A in PCR No.59/2012, passed by
the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, and
Special Judge for P.C. Act, referring the complaint to the
complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban Division to investigate under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
offences alleged to have been committed under Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sections 464,
468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC,
as against the petitioner/accused No.5 and etc;
IN CRL.P.No.7812/2012
BETWEEN:
Mr. Umesh D.K.,
Aged about 39 years,
Son of D.K.Kurugodiyavar,
Sales Manager,
M/s.DLF Southern Homes
Private Limited,
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 with its
Local office at
Akshaya Nagara Main Road,
Begur, Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore Urban - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
12
(By Shri K.G.Raghavan, Senior Advocate for
Shri C.H.Hanumantharaya, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Lokayukta of Karnataka,
Having its office at
M.S.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001
By its Registrar.
2. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 69 years,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa @
Chikka Nagappa,
3. Mrs. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
5. Kum. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
Residing at No.1245,
1st Floor, 5th Main,
13
18th Cross, 7th Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated
15.11.2012 vide Annexure-A in PCR No.59/2012, referring the
complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Bangalore Urban Division to investigate under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
offences alleged to have been committed under Section 13 of
the P.C.Act punishable under Seton 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and also under Sections 464, 468, 471, 420, 506
and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC, as against the
petitioner/accused No.7 and etc;
IN CRL.P.No.7824/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. M.C.Lakshmeesha,
Son of Sri. M.L.Chenappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.48,
8th Cross, J.C.Nagar,
Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore - 560 086.
Executive Engineer,
B.B.M.P.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri K.Shashikiran Shetty, Senior Advocate for
Shri Vybhav Ramesh, Advocate)
14
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By the Superintendent of
Police, Lokayuktha Police,
Bangalore.
2. Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa @
Chikka Nagappa,
Aged about 69 years,
3. Smt. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
5. Smt. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are
Residing at No.1245,
1st Floor, 5th Main,
18th Cross, 7th Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5)
15
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the FIR in Crime
No.89/2012 registered by the first respondent under Section
13(i)(c) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act and Sections 464,
468, 471, 420, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and set
aside the order dated 15.11.2012 making a reference of the
complaint to Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore Urban by exercising powers under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C.
IN W.P.No.51795/2012
BETWEEN:
Sri. Aravindh Limbavali,
Son of Venkatarao Limbavali,
Aged about 45 years,
Resident of No.6,
Renuka Nilaya,
9th Cross, Annayappa Colony,
New Thippasandra,
HAL 3rd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 075.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri K. Shashikiran Shetty, Senior Advocate for
Shri Bharath Kumar V., Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka Lokayuktha Police,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa,
16
Aged about 69 years,
3. Mrs. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of N.Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
5. Kum. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
Resident of No.1245,
1st Floor, 5th Main,
18th Cross, 7th Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for records in matter
bearing PCR No.59/2012 pending on the file of the XXIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and to
quash the complaint filed by the second respondent before the
court of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City, which is numbered as PCR No.59/2012 vide
Annexure-A and etc;
17
IN W.P.No.121/2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Shiva Kumar K.M.,
Son of Late K.H.Mahadevappa,
Aged about 61 years,
Resident of Villa No.129,
Adarsh Palm Retreat,
Devarabeesanahalli,
Bangalore - 560 103.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri K. Shashikiran Shetty, Senior Advocate for
Shri Bharath Kumar V., Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka Lokayuktha Police,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Son of Sri. Hogebandi Nagappa,
Aged about 69 years,
3. Mrs. Maithra,
Wife of Late Raja Kumar,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Sri. Manu,
Son of N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 27 years,
18
5. Kum. Shashi,
Daughter of Sri. N. Nagaraju,
Aged about 20 years,
The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are
Resident of No.1245, 1st Floor,
5th Main, 18th Cross,
7th Sector, HSR Layout,
Bangalore - 560 034.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
Shri Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5)
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for records in matters
bearing PCR No.59/2012 pending on the file of the XXIII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and to
quash the complaint filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 before
the court of XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City, which is numbered as PCR No.59/2012 vide
Annexure-A and etc;
These petitions having been heard and reserved on
07.10.2016 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this
day, the Court delivered the following:-
19
ORDER
These petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order as the petitions seek to question the same proceedings, by the several petitioners. The facts leading up to these petitions is stated to be as follows:
During the period 2006-2008, M/s Annabel Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., ( Hereinafter referred to as 'the ABD', for brevity) a group company of M/s. DLF Ltd., a real estate development company said to be well known throughout the country with a track record of over 60 years, is said to have purchased several parcels of land, converted for residential purposes, totally measuring 75 acres at Begur village, Bangalore South Taluk. The amalgamated khatha for the development of lands is said to have been in the name of the said purchaser. M/s. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., yet another group company of DLF Ltd., is said to be developing a portion of the lands into a residential enclave. These lands are said to be accessed through the Begur - Hulimavu Road, which 20 was said to be 40 feet wide, as of the year 2008. It is stated that in the revised Master Plan 2015, as notified by the BDA on 25.06.2007, the road was proposed to be widened to 60 feet.
It is stated that the vicinity of the lands was seen to be speedily developed and swiftly being built up. Keeping in view the density of traffic movement which would naturally increase on the road, ABD and other land owners on either side of the said Begur - Hulimavu Road, are said to have arrived at a consensus that the road would definitely require to be widened, and are said to have proposed to the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to widen the road to 80 feet and had accordingly sought modification of the CDP. It is stated that they had also provided detailed sketches of the land that would be voluntarily surrendered by the respective land owners for the said purpose. It is stated that they had also proposed to bear the cost of formation of drains, and other infrastructure to go with the formation and widening of the road. 21
2. It is stated that the BBMP had, by its letter dated 16.02.2009, informed DLF Southern Homes that the road in question had been declared as an Arterial road and had directed that the said company should coordinate with the Chief Engineer to arrive at the cost of the road construction. Accordingly, an estimate of the cost of work was also said to have been prepared in consultation with the BBMP.
3. On 3.8.2009, a notification in terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, was said to have been issued notifying the Hulimavu Main Road as a 60 feet wide road. The notification is said to have included the details of the lands required for road widening and of the right of the land owners to seek Transferable Development Rights.
On a further request by the concerned to amend the notification to incorporate the width of the road to 80 feet instead of 60 feet, the BBMP is said to have approved the proposal at a meeting on 6.1.2010. It is pursuant to this that all 22 the concerned land owners are said to have executed Relinquishment Deeds in favour of the BBMP, under the TDR Scheme in respect of a total area of 1.06 lakh sq.ft of land, as on 13.01.2010.
It is stated that DLF Southern Homes and ABD made a total payment of Rs.3.92 crore towards the cost of widening the road without seeking any TDR rights.
4. It is as on 23.10.2012 it was learnt through news paper reports that a criminal complaint had been lodged by one N.Nagaraju and his three children before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban, against the several petitioners, interalia, alleging that the then minister for Health and Family Welfare, Aravind Limbavalli and the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bharat Lal Meena had shown official favours to DLF by permitting violation of the Revised Master Plan to facilitate illegal constructions. It is on the basis of the said complaint that the 23 said Court had directed investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973. It is that which is under challenge in these several petitions.
5. The petitioner in Criminal Petition no.7799/2012 is said to be the Managing Director of M/s DLF Ltd. He is shown as the Managing Director of DLF Homes Pvt. Ltd. According to him, there is no such entity in existence. And that he is not an office bearer of any of the companies actually involved in the development of the land and buildings in question.
The petitioner in Criminal Petition no.7800/ 2012 is said to be the Chairman of M/s DLF Ltd. And is shown as the Chairman of DLF Homes Pvt. Ltd., in the complaint. He also pleads that he has no role in the day to day functioning of the companies involved in the development of the land and buildings concerned, which is carried on by group companies which are independent legal entities.
24
The petitioner in Criminal Petition no.7812 / 2012 is said to be the Sales Manager of M/s DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. It is pointed out that the role of the said petitioner in the company is of such a nature that he has no role in the decision making process in the company. He has no knowledge whatsoever of the controversy involved, and he is only engaged in implementing sales and marketing activities of the company and hence his inclusion in the complaint leads to a miscarriage of justice.
The petitioners in Criminal Petition no.7823/2012 are arrayed as accused nos.8 & 9, respectively in the complaint. It is stated that Accused no.9 is the owner of land in Sy. No. 357/3 , 315/ 1 A and 315 /2 apart from other lands. It is further alleged that accused nos.2 to 4, namely the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Bharat Lal Meena, the Administrator, BBMP, K.M. Shivakumar and the Executive Engineer, BBMP, Lakshmeesh, had while sanctioning the plan of development of Accused nos. 5 to 11, namely, the several 25 petitioners, had ignored kharab lands, lakes, C.A. sites, raja kaluve and other government lands. However, no clear details are furnished of the same. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant had engaged one Kiran to develop his land. Kiran having died on 23.10.2008, the petitioners in the above petition had then been empowered under a Special Power of Attorney to carry on the work of development to construct a building of 6 floors, but a plan had been obtained to construct 24 floors and that Accused no. 8 had also executed the Relinquishment Deed in favour of the BBMP without his consent or knowledge in respect of a portion of the land belonging to him. And hence he was constrained to cancel the power of attorney and the joint development agreement. It is hence contended that the dispute if at all, is of a civil nature and does not disclose any criminal offence.
The Petitioner in Criminal Petition 7792 / 2012 is a consultant of a company engaged by the petitioners in the above Petition in Criminal Petition 7823 / 2012 , to develop the 26 lands involved therein. While alleging a breach of contract against the petitioners therein, the present petitioner and his company are sought to be named as accused without indicating any criminal offence that is said to have been committed.
The petitioner in Criminal Petition 7793/2012 is said to be the Law Officer of the same company in which the petitioner in the above petition in Criminal Petition 7792/ 2012 is said to be engaged and is similarly placed as the petitioner therein. In that, there is no criminal offence that could be attributed to the petitioner.
The petitioners in WP 51795 / 2012, WP 121 / 2013 and Criminal Petition 7824 / 2012 are the then Minister for Health, Government of Karnataka, the then Administrator, BBMP and the then Executive Engineer, BBMP, Bommanahalli Road Infrastructure, respectively. They are arrayed as Accused no.1, 3 and 4, respectively.
27
6. Having heard the learned Senior Advocates Shri K. G. Raghavan and Shri Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the pending criminal complaint is without any substance. This is especially so having regard to the circumstance that the land belonging to the complainant has been relinquished in favour of the BBMP and has been utilized in road widening. This is an irreversible event. The complainant's primary grievance is that such relinquishment was not willful and was effected by his agent without his tacit consent. This would be a private dispute between the complainant and his agent.
Secondly, the complaint against the chairman of M/s DLF Ltd., or its Managing Director is misconceived in the absence of any material to indicate that the said company is in any manner involved in the development of the lands in question. Similarly, the arraignment of the Sales Manager of 28 M/s DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd., as one of the accused is also inexplicable as he could not be expected to either represent the company or be expected to be involved in any decision making of the management of the company.
7. In so far as the allegations against his agents, arrayed as accused nos.8 and 9 is concerned, would tantamount to a private contractual dispute between the complainant and the said accused and cannot be characterized as part of a larger conspiracy involving the other accused.
In so far as the allegations of illegalities committed by the Minister who is arrayed as Accused no.1 and the other officials of the BBMP who are arrayed as the other accused, are concerned, the self same allegations of a nexus between the said accused and several property developers in having engineered a scheme of illegally widening the road in order to enable the property developers to claim and utilize a higher floor area ratio 29 in respect of the buildings developed by them, is seen to be the subject matter of several proceedings including a public interest litigation before a division bench of this court and it has been found that there was no such illegality involved, as per Order dated 8.1.2016 passed in WP 36714 / 2015.
8. One other contention urged by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the so called road widening was only partial and did not extend beyond the lands developed and would clearly expose the conspiracy by the BBMP and others to extend illegal benefit to the developers, is stoutly resisted by the petitioners who would insist that it is an incorrect assertion and that the road has been widened from end to end as proposed and no further widening is pending. Even if this allegation is true, it does not indicate any criminal offence committed by any of the accused.
9. Consequently, there was prima facie no criminal case to be investigated and the court below was not justified in 30 directing an investigation on the vague and untenable allegations. In any event, having regard to the subsequent events, the complaint is no longer relevant and is liable to be closed. Consequently, the impugned proceedings in these petitions stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS*